The Prince and the Press: Continuing the Discussion on Prince Harry and the UK Media

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

A few weeks ago, there were three really great long running threads about Prince Harry and his battles against the UK "popular press."

I thought I would do one that looks at Harry's current court action.

For those interested in the kind of balanced view you won't get from the tabloids, all of whom face conflicts of interest, here is the Guardian take, which is the springboard for this discussion.

It is not possible to take any of the tabloids seriously when they report on Harry's legal cases. Former editor Alan Rusbridger, now of Prospect, has observed that all tabloids covering this story are acting unethically as they have not declared their conflicts of interest: Harry is suing all of their media houses.

The only papers with no conflict of interest are the Guardian, the Telegraph and the Financial Times.

So I will be following this from the Guardian live page.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/04/diana-meghan-and-the-tabloid-press-harry-finally-gets-his-day-in-court

Who’s Coleen?!

It's not often I agree with Alistair Campbell but on one thing he is correct - there is no point relying on any of the media for coverage of this case. They all have their own reasons for not being entirely balanced in their reporting.

I looked at the BBC, the Guardian, Reuters and The Times - each one presented a different story or piece of evidence and ignored others. So The Times mentioned about PH's lawyers claiming to have proof that MGN destroyed evidence and about the trackers on Chelsey and a friend's car. Either the Guardian or the BBC mentioned about the message notifications disappearing and said the judge seemed interested in that point (because it had happened in prior hacking cases). One of them (but not the others) made the point about an email from an MGN editor that mentioned PH, Caroline Flack and how to hack phones.

You can't assume there is no evidence or the evidence is poor when going from site to site proves the media are all being very selective with their reporting.

I'd assume PH must have a case. Otherwise why would the KC have taken him on.

Rooney

She's referenced here because of the events of the Wagatha Christie trial (a civil action, so also decided on balance of probability). She won, but had considerably more persuasive reasons for saying that the leak must have come by a particular route (planting a false story to one person only)

He might have a case but I doubt it’s been convincing so far.

Harry has said he’s there to hear the evidence too.

And people at the court said similar, not hugely convincing

It doesn’t mean it’s not to come though with other witnesses

This is why the live tweeting and zoom court cases were so useful with many of the civil cases (employment tribunals) on the FWR (Feminist MN) watch-along-athons. We were all commenting on exactly the same - complete - information from the hearings.

I'd assume PH must have a case. Otherwise why would the KC have taken him on.

Didn't he 'take him on' for the 'wanting to pay for security' Judicial review case? Which was obviously a complete non starter.

David Sherborne is a showman. He loves high profile celebrity cases. Plus, the Sussex Account must be very lucrative given how many cases Harry has on the go. So it would be worth it for Sherborne to take on a few duds to keep Harry sweet.

I think saying that Harry actually had solid evidence but 'the media' chose not to report it in any of their numerous live blogs is a bit tendentious. Perhaps there is good evidence to come out over the course of the trial, either from Harry or the other claimants. But it does not seem to have been produced over the past few days.

It's not often I agree with Alistair Campbell but on one thing he is correct - there is no point relying on any of the media for coverage of this case. They all have their own reasons for not being entirely balanced in their reporting.

He suggested looking at the transcripts if we could find them online but I wouldn't have a clue where to look and he didn't say. All I've seen is Harry's statement which was prepared before he went to court.

Agree. I have been looking for something similar for this case but haven't found anything. With the live tweets everyone can make up their own minds about the statements and evidence instead of having to rely on the press, who in this case are an interested party.

Is Harry realistically that far from the li e of succession. If William becomes king and he and Catherine died prior to George being 18yrs would not Harry as regent? Appreciate it may be a bit far fetched but just making a point.

No, the regent would be Camilla, Anne, Edward or Beatrice

I'd assume PH must have a case. Otherwise why would the KC have taken him on.

Where a case is weak legal representatives will have encouraged settlement before trial. However if the plaintiff steadfastly refuses to settle then the legal team have little choice but to see it through. See also Rebecca Vardy!!

Court transcripts available in theory here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1155030/EX107_GN_0423.pdf

Guidance notes here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1155030/EX107_GN_0423.pdf

There's a charge though, and I've no idea if there's any bar on "ordinary people" accessing them in a case like this

I don't think he's proved his case from a legal perspective based on his own evidence, but the first journalist looked pretty shifty.

No, the regent would be Camilla, Anne, Edward or Beatrice

Unlikely. Harry would still be George's closest relation and he's still a councillor of state.

I think it's extremely unlikely that Harry would ever be appointed regent to George.
I suspect that every contingency has been considered.

Completely agree with you... again. Thanks for your measured contributions.

Well hopefully we'll never find out!

Amen to that!

Harry would not be appointed Regent whilst he is resident overseas

It is likely that there would be co-Regents. It follows line of succession, of those aged over 21. Andrew would, I hope have the sense to decline, and I don't see Beatrice or Eugenie wanting the role. But they, as Councillors of State, could petition Parliament to appoint the other two Councillors of State (Edward and Anne) as co-regents (which I think is the outcome that would go down best) with Catherine (if she survived the entirely hypothetical situation of early demise) installed as a "regent lite" meaning she remained responsible for George's upbringing and education, but did not take on a role in the government of the country

Its been established how the regency works and its as AnnunciataZ said. In fact beatrice was added to push harry further down so even less likely to be called upon.

Harry's evidence that Chelseys flight out was hacked because they knew the flight times is thin evidence as photos have emerged of william and kate and the kids flying out to Jordan for the wedding.

I sort of wish they wouldn't all fly together. If we had to have King Harry and Queen meghan I would be first in line to sign up for a republic!

I'm not sure the words "Andrew" and "common sense" go hand in hand @EdithWeston!

Anyway it's a bit ghoulish to speculate on what would happen if George lost his parents, isn't it?

Yy I thought exactly the same.

Anne and Edward aren't counsellors of state. https://www.royal.uk/counsellors-state

Admittedly I thought they were too but the official royal site seems to disagree! And Eugenie would come before them too, and Louise before Anne.